The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (Article 3 and 4 of the lower judgment’s holding) did not have received a one-time injection device containing a phiphone from the J around November 25, 2015, and there is no fact that the Defendant sold a phiphone to M on August 2, 2016.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the column of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel.” In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the above Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the unfair argument of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, there is a unique area for determination of sentencing under Article 1.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from reversal of the first instance judgment and rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) In the instant case, it is reasonable to reverse the lower court’s sentencing.